Avot346

1:
We have encountered the first clause of our present mishnah many times in the course of our study of this tractate. It serves to indicate that the author of the present mishnah is the same sage as was the author of the previous mishnah. In this present case, Yehudah ben-Tema. However, there are several cogent reasons for casting serious doubt on the matter in the present case.

2:
We mentioned in Avot 343 that the previous mishnah, Mishnah 20, was originally intended to be the last mishnah of the tractate. This means that whatever follows is a later accretion that does not reflect the intentions of the original editor – and for our present purposes it really does not matter who that original editor was. We do not know why three more mishnayot were added nor do we know who added them and when. There are good grounds for thinking that the addition was made quite a long while after the original publication of the tractate. (Since Rabbi's son is quoted in Chapter Two it is possible that the date of original publication was during the 3rd century CE, perhaps around the year 250 CE.)

3:
One certain proof that our present mishnah is a late accretion is the fact that it has a "double". In the Gemara [Ketubot 50a] we find the following teaching:

Abbayyé was an orphan from birth: his father died before he was born and his mother died during his birth. He was adopted by his uncle Rabba and he grew up with his cousin Rava who was like a brother to him. Whenever Abbayyé quotes his mother (and he does so quite often!) he is referring to his stepmother whom he loved dearly; and he always quotes her words of wisdom approvingly. Now we should note that Abbayyé (or his stepmother) says that a child should be introduced to bible studies when he reaches the age of six, whereas our present mishnah teaches that this should be done one year earlier. Also, the age of thirteen is given as the age when a youngster may be required to observe the 24-hour fasts (Tish'ah b'Av and Yom Kippur); in our present mishnah fasting is not mentioned at all and the age of thirteen is ascribed to mitzvah observance in general. It goes without saying that Abbayyé, one of the greatest of the Amoraïm and the head of the Yeshivah in Pumpedita, would never have quoted his stepmother's opinion if he had known of a Tanna who had taught differently. Since Abbayyé died in the year 338 CE it makes sense that our present mishnah may well post-date Abbayyé's death.

4:
Another reason for doubting that our present mishnah is an original part of the tractate is the fact that in the version of the Mishnah that Rambam published together with his commentary (in the 12th century CE) this mishnah is not only ignored but it is completely missing. This suggests that either Rambam was ignorant of this mishnah or that he did not consider it to belong to this tractate.

5:
On many occasions during our study of Tractate Avot we have quoted the classic commentary of Rabbi YomTov Lippmann Heller, Tosafot YomTov (17th Century). In his commentary on our present mishnah he quotes an earlier authority who states quite categorically:

So, it is possible that the mishnah that at present is to be found in Avot 264 was originally intended to be placed here. Rabbi Heller also notes that it is incredible that the culmination of the tractate would have been "dead, gone, and out of this world" when the sages were always so careful to end each tractate on a positive note.

To be continued.

We are fast approaching the end of Tractate Avot and in the very near future we shall have to choose the next tractate to be studied. If you have any requests or suggestions regarding the next tractate to be studied please send me an email at Admin @ bmv.org.il as soon as possible.